챗GPT에(게) 묻다

Abstract

This review examines the meaning of ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) model developed by OpenAI, and Professor Kim Dae-sik, a brain scientist, exchanged questions and answers on topics such as human relations, love, and happiness, risks facing mankind, God's existence and death. First, we asked ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft's search engine “Newbing” to write a book review on “The Future of Mankind Ask ChatGPT,” and then analyzed the contents and composition of each answer. The book review written by ChatGPT was presented in the form of “Overall Introduction-Book Composition Method and Theme-Limitations and Significance of ChatGPT-General Review,” and the flow of the article was generally smooth, but it was difficult to find the writer’s fresh perspective. Google’s Bard article confirmed that the text generation method of artificial intelligence chatbots focuses on universal summaries and simple and clear explanations rather than individuality and originality. Microsoft’s search engine “Newbing,” based on the GPT-4 model, specifically cited the contents of the book to increase reliability and reveal the source in consideration of the issue of intellectual property infringement.
 Looking at the conversation scenes between humans and machines, I thought about the significance of the conversation. In order for “ask-answer” to be a process of generating meaning, curiosity, and curiosity about not only oneself but also others and the world must be placed behind it. In addition, to continue the conversation, a literacy ability to discover meaning is required, and literacy presupposes the ability to read between the lines and grasp contextual knowledge. This eventually requires the imagination to fill the gap and the overall perspective to grasp the relationship between the part and the whole, the part and the part. The process of finding meaning is the ability to think about surplus and outside and grasp the context, and if you say one thing, it is no different from the sense of recognizing heat. The sensibility that knows how to capture nuances belongs to the realm of humanism, which is essential for humans to sense and judge an object or phenomenon.
 Therefore, Professor Kim Dae-sik’s conclusion in “Epilogue II” of “The Future of Humanity Ask ChatGPT” has great implications. The eye to distinguish the voices of individuals, which contain nuances subtly different from those that “probabilistic parrots” imitate plausibly, is based on humanities knowledge that cannot be easily filled with the names of efficiency, probability, and practicality. To exist as thinking human beings, we realize again that we must ask ‘why’ rather than ‘what’ and rely on the logic of coincidence and the specific context of life, not on the axis of stochastic thinking. And at the core of it, there is humanity that repeatedly asks and answers with a long-term perspective.